It's been almost a year since I blogged about the bozo that's now our president. I tried, for a while after the election, to be hopeful and to set aside my dislike of the guy and his ideas. I attended the Inauguration, and heard from the speech some positive things. I was still hopeful.
Now I'm not. I'm watching a president wield power as we've not seen before; I'm watching him discard campaign promises like a frat boy sheds college girls after they give up some skin; and I'm cringing as Congress and the White House work their hardest to put us on the road to long-term fiscal and economic collapse.
If I were really nutty, I'd call it a massive conspiracy, or at least a 'master plan' on the part of our Dear Leader. If the market collapses...if people enough people are destitute and desparate...and if everything but government is blamed, then only government will have the credibility to step in and right all the wrongs in society. Obama wants to remake America -- he's said that. I just didn't think it would be in Marx's image.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Little Pebbles Piled Up Make Mountains
His flag pin. Hand over the heart during the pledge? His pastor. His car (a gas-guzzling Chrysler 300 Hemi). And more. Little things can be ignored, or more often simply overlooked. But when there's a pile of them, they start to become more than the sum of their parts. The more I learn about Barack Obama -- his life, his decisions, his views, his plans -- the less I like him and, in fact, the more scared of a President Obama I become. I see a man whose past doesn't jibe with his message today -- inconsistency bothers me, especially when it smacks of hypocrisy -- but what's got me thinking this morning is something pretty simple, summative, and completely damning in my book: I don't think Obama is like me.
Let me clarify that! And not with doublespeak, either. I don't mean "like me" as in "he must share my views, my experiences, my way of thinking" in a granular, personal sense. I mean it in the bigger-picture national identity sense. Remember the original, nit-picky definition of nation: it's a group of people who share common cultural, ethnic, linguistic, historical, and/or religious bonds, and therefore identify themselves as a distinct group. That's why America is a nation-state -- the American nation, as it existed in the 1770s, fought to formalize a state (a government controlling land) to govern that cohesive nation of people. So 'nation' does not speak directly of laws, structures of government, or lines on a map. What it speaks of is foundation-level identity.
And I don't think Barack Obama shares enough of that greater American national identity to be our president. Not flag pin? Okay, I can accept part of his reasoning -- but after a stretch. Hand on heart? Huh. I guess he's interpreting our cultural traditions for himself, and shaping them into what he feels is their best for for him? Car? I can't help him on that one, especially when he spouts enviro-rhetoric. His wife's hatred of America? No way out of that one. His pastor? Ditto times about 1000. What I see, when I take him as a whole, is a guy who I don't think would smile at a 4th of July parade for the same reasons the rest of us would. I don't see him sitting down for a Thanksgiving meal and bowing his head in prayer for the same reasons -- or, considering how pro-choice he is, the same God. In short, I don't think he shares enough of our collective values to be our president.
It's got nothing to do with the fact that he's a Democrat, or black -- zero, zip, nothing at all. Our country is wildly diverse, and it really is a source of our strength -- no cultural inbreeding here, thank you very much. All it takes to be American is a work ethic and a belief in the dream...that America is a good place where people can be free and make homes and families, and where people can respect one another's differences. I see plenty of blue-collar union members who share these views. Soccer moms, too. And preachers, teachers, bankers and engineers...just people doing the work they (hopefully) enjoy and see value in, and bringing home their gains to family. So why do I think Obama is different from the rest of us?
How can you buy into the dream if you're not proud of what that dream has so far produced? If you don't, at a soul-level, accept and enjoy the little traditions the rest of us share? Either you don't believe in their value, and don't experience the little joy in being a part of them, or you think you're somehow better than them -- campy, folksy crap like that is below you. Or both. Great. That's the last pair I'd want occupying the White House -- an America-hater and a guy who thinks he's much, much better than not only the rest of us, but better than our nation.
Screw that.
Here's an article to consider.
Let me clarify that! And not with doublespeak, either. I don't mean "like me" as in "he must share my views, my experiences, my way of thinking" in a granular, personal sense. I mean it in the bigger-picture national identity sense. Remember the original, nit-picky definition of nation: it's a group of people who share common cultural, ethnic, linguistic, historical, and/or religious bonds, and therefore identify themselves as a distinct group. That's why America is a nation-state -- the American nation, as it existed in the 1770s, fought to formalize a state (a government controlling land) to govern that cohesive nation of people. So 'nation' does not speak directly of laws, structures of government, or lines on a map. What it speaks of is foundation-level identity.
And I don't think Barack Obama shares enough of that greater American national identity to be our president. Not flag pin? Okay, I can accept part of his reasoning -- but after a stretch. Hand on heart? Huh. I guess he's interpreting our cultural traditions for himself, and shaping them into what he feels is their best for for him? Car? I can't help him on that one, especially when he spouts enviro-rhetoric. His wife's hatred of America? No way out of that one. His pastor? Ditto times about 1000. What I see, when I take him as a whole, is a guy who I don't think would smile at a 4th of July parade for the same reasons the rest of us would. I don't see him sitting down for a Thanksgiving meal and bowing his head in prayer for the same reasons -- or, considering how pro-choice he is, the same God. In short, I don't think he shares enough of our collective values to be our president.
It's got nothing to do with the fact that he's a Democrat, or black -- zero, zip, nothing at all. Our country is wildly diverse, and it really is a source of our strength -- no cultural inbreeding here, thank you very much. All it takes to be American is a work ethic and a belief in the dream...that America is a good place where people can be free and make homes and families, and where people can respect one another's differences. I see plenty of blue-collar union members who share these views. Soccer moms, too. And preachers, teachers, bankers and engineers...just people doing the work they (hopefully) enjoy and see value in, and bringing home their gains to family. So why do I think Obama is different from the rest of us?
How can you buy into the dream if you're not proud of what that dream has so far produced? If you don't, at a soul-level, accept and enjoy the little traditions the rest of us share? Either you don't believe in their value, and don't experience the little joy in being a part of them, or you think you're somehow better than them -- campy, folksy crap like that is below you. Or both. Great. That's the last pair I'd want occupying the White House -- an America-hater and a guy who thinks he's much, much better than not only the rest of us, but better than our nation.
Screw that.
Here's an article to consider.
Friday, March 21, 2008
It gets worse
In this article from today's ABC News site, Obama seeks to clarify comments he made about how his (white) grandmother had made racially insensitive comments when he was younger...in clarifying her comments, and offering his perspective, he referred to her as a "typical white person" who confused by and afraid (my paraphrase of his further comments) people who are different.
Presumably he meant that when white people are around black people they don't feel comfortable -- at least that's how he characterized grandma. And in clarifying those words, he also lumped me, and the rest of whitedom, under that same category: what I'd call 'reflexive racist.' Thanks, Barack. So much for above race, transcending race. How about race-bating? Thanks for implying that I, and other white people, are all, deep inside, a little racist.
I can't wait for his clarification of this clarification. Remember his comments on his wife's statement that she'd never been proud of America, as an adult, until her dear hubbie ran for president? Oh, yeah, what she really meant was that she was concerned and cynical about political partisanship and was relieved to be experiencing a more civil campaign season, as championed by Barack. If Mrs. Princeton education really meant that, why didn't she say it? Probably because what she said is exactly what she meant.
If Obama doesn't think, at some place in his person, that whitey is racist, why did he say what he said?
Hold on for the doublespeak, and here's a good article for perspective.
Presumably he meant that when white people are around black people they don't feel comfortable -- at least that's how he characterized grandma. And in clarifying those words, he also lumped me, and the rest of whitedom, under that same category: what I'd call 'reflexive racist.' Thanks, Barack. So much for above race, transcending race. How about race-bating? Thanks for implying that I, and other white people, are all, deep inside, a little racist.
I can't wait for his clarification of this clarification. Remember his comments on his wife's statement that she'd never been proud of America, as an adult, until her dear hubbie ran for president? Oh, yeah, what she really meant was that she was concerned and cynical about political partisanship and was relieved to be experiencing a more civil campaign season, as championed by Barack. If Mrs. Princeton education really meant that, why didn't she say it? Probably because what she said is exactly what she meant.
If Obama doesn't think, at some place in his person, that whitey is racist, why did he say what he said?
Hold on for the doublespeak, and here's a good article for perspective.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Back to the issues: Iraq
According to Obama's campaign website, he will immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq at a pace of one to two combat brigades per month, which means that all our combat troops would be out of Iraq, possibly, by late summer of 2010. He doesn't say a thing about what might result in Iraq from such a withdrawal, only that our, aside from security personnel for diplomats, will all be home. He does say that he'll send troops back to Iraq if there's evidence that Al Qaeda establishes any bases in Iraq. He goes on at length about working international, multi-lateral diplomatic angles through the UN, regional players, and neighboring states.
On a point-by-point bases, he and John McCain share the same Iraq policy when it comes to Iraq's most troublesome neighbors, Syria and Iran. Both candidates say that they will pressure those states, essentially, to behave. Given the records of both those government supporting terror abroad and in Iraq, and the long borders they share with Iraq, this is important. I wonder, however, at just how much Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will swoon over Obama's rhetoric. And if the United States assumes a position of weakness by pulling out of Iraq -- seemingly regardless of what is going on on the ground there -- how seriously could we expect those (nasty) leaders to take us and our strong words? That sounds a bit like the kid who, upon running halfway down the block, starts screaming, while still running, about how he's going to "kick your ass." How could U.S. diplomatic pressure have any meaning without being backed up with the threat of force? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but welcome to the real world, folks. And if America is halfway down the block, looking over it's left shoulder at "them," while trying to look tough, don't expect much.
And what's this garbage about "if" Al Qaeda establishes a presence in Iraq? THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. I'll leave that one at that -- it was a stupid, pandering comment that Obama makes, no doubt catering to those who are still stuck in the 2002-early 2003 debate of whether or not to go to war in the first place. I, for one, would like to live in today, and plan rationally for tomorrow, rather than rehash the debates of the past. We're there, so deal with it. It's easy to blow up a smokescreen of anger over the idea that the war was unjustified in the first place. Okay, fine, sure, whatever, that's nice -- how are you going to win it? I don't see Obama's plan as "winning" anything for America, or the world, but a power vacuum in the Middle East that will be readily filled by Iran and/or Syria at best.
For basic references, check Barack's site and McCain's site, and this one for perspective.
On a point-by-point bases, he and John McCain share the same Iraq policy when it comes to Iraq's most troublesome neighbors, Syria and Iran. Both candidates say that they will pressure those states, essentially, to behave. Given the records of both those government supporting terror abroad and in Iraq, and the long borders they share with Iraq, this is important. I wonder, however, at just how much Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will swoon over Obama's rhetoric. And if the United States assumes a position of weakness by pulling out of Iraq -- seemingly regardless of what is going on on the ground there -- how seriously could we expect those (nasty) leaders to take us and our strong words? That sounds a bit like the kid who, upon running halfway down the block, starts screaming, while still running, about how he's going to "kick your ass." How could U.S. diplomatic pressure have any meaning without being backed up with the threat of force? Sorry if that sounds harsh, but welcome to the real world, folks. And if America is halfway down the block, looking over it's left shoulder at "them," while trying to look tough, don't expect much.
And what's this garbage about "if" Al Qaeda establishes a presence in Iraq? THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. I'll leave that one at that -- it was a stupid, pandering comment that Obama makes, no doubt catering to those who are still stuck in the 2002-early 2003 debate of whether or not to go to war in the first place. I, for one, would like to live in today, and plan rationally for tomorrow, rather than rehash the debates of the past. We're there, so deal with it. It's easy to blow up a smokescreen of anger over the idea that the war was unjustified in the first place. Okay, fine, sure, whatever, that's nice -- how are you going to win it? I don't see Obama's plan as "winning" anything for America, or the world, but a power vacuum in the Middle East that will be readily filled by Iran and/or Syria at best.
For basic references, check Barack's site and McCain's site, and this one for perspective.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The "Let's Put This Behind Us" Speech
I'm not going to pick apart, line by line, Obama's speech from Tuesday. It's clear that he's trying to take positive steps to put the Rev. Wright issue to rest, so he can get back on his message and refocus his campaign, and everyone watching it, on his presumed nomination.
I can't fault the guy for wanting this issue off his list -- race is so divisive, so emotional, and often such an irrational issue it's sometimes better just avoided. Can we really avoid racial issues in America? Sadly, no. But given the choice would a candidate who is trying to paint himself as having broad appeal want to focus on them? Oh no not at all. And as I said, I don't blame him for that.
What I'm concerned about is Obama's admission that he was present when Wright made some of his incendiary comments. When this first came up, Obama was adamant that he'd never heard any of the nasty comments now readily available on YouTube, and now he's backed-off from that, saying that he had heard some things that people might find objectionable. What's the deal? Did he have an inkling that Wright was a bomb-throwing racial opportunist with nutty conspiracy theories? Did anything that might make Obama think that Wright was anything less than a great "spiritual advisor," and great theologian?
At first, the answer to those questions was NO. Now the door is ajar...and again, if Barack is so smart, so perceptive, so enlightened...why didn't any of those objectionable comments that he now admits he was there for (without, of course, providing specifics -- but isn't that Obama's stock in trade?) lead him to look deeper? After 20 years? PLEASE.
You can't be both a transcendent genius and a thick-headed lunk at the same time. I don't think he's either. But I do think he's a liar.
I can't fault the guy for wanting this issue off his list -- race is so divisive, so emotional, and often such an irrational issue it's sometimes better just avoided. Can we really avoid racial issues in America? Sadly, no. But given the choice would a candidate who is trying to paint himself as having broad appeal want to focus on them? Oh no not at all. And as I said, I don't blame him for that.
What I'm concerned about is Obama's admission that he was present when Wright made some of his incendiary comments. When this first came up, Obama was adamant that he'd never heard any of the nasty comments now readily available on YouTube, and now he's backed-off from that, saying that he had heard some things that people might find objectionable. What's the deal? Did he have an inkling that Wright was a bomb-throwing racial opportunist with nutty conspiracy theories? Did anything that might make Obama think that Wright was anything less than a great "spiritual advisor," and great theologian?
At first, the answer to those questions was NO. Now the door is ajar...and again, if Barack is so smart, so perceptive, so enlightened...why didn't any of those objectionable comments that he now admits he was there for (without, of course, providing specifics -- but isn't that Obama's stock in trade?) lead him to look deeper? After 20 years? PLEASE.
You can't be both a transcendent genius and a thick-headed lunk at the same time. I don't think he's either. But I do think he's a liar.
Monday, March 17, 2008
What's this? Someone lacking HOPE?
Yup, that's me. I'm fresh out. And I don't want change, either -- whether I can believe in it or not. And, no, I can't.
That's a great many negatives, isn't it? Lest you think I'm a pessimist, let me tell you what I am about, rather than just what I'm not about. I am about completely sick of the Cult of Obama, Obama supporters (Baracktards, I've heard them called), hope, change, and other empty rhetorical devices that cause crowds to practically wet themselves and otherwise educated adults to abandon reason in favor or lemming-like crowd-think (a much more mindless version of groupthink).
How many of you saw Conan: The Barbarian? Remember when James Earl Jones, as Thulsa Doom, spoke to his followers? And they murmured, en masse, "Doom....Doom...Doom...."? How far is that from 17,000 people losing control over their bodily functions when Obama blew his nose?
Anyway, this blog, whatever it ends up becoming, is about two things: first, my highly subjective loathing of the cult-like following Obama has amassed and his increasingly arrogant behavior; and second, my highly objective issues with his philosophies, policy ideas, and plans for America.
And just in case you're wondering right now where my objective side is (after all, that snot story is pretty subjective), go read this one and think about it long and hard. If Obama is as smart and perceptive as he acts, and his flunkies insist, why the major lapse on Crazy Reverend Wright? If Obama was really an active, involved, invested member of his church, can we really believe that he was totally ignorant of Wright's views on America? Wait, wait..it's just his pastor, right? Wrong. If Obama gives money to his church -- which he insists he does -- isn't he, then, subsidizing that line? Wait, there's more: if he's tithing, and clueless about what the money is in part supporting, doesn't that raise a valid question about his judgment? If he's not tithing, he's lied to us, because he says he does. If he's clueless, isn't that a strike against him for president? And if he did know, and didn't do anything about it in the name of being "tolerant" doesn't that make him both a liar and a moral relativist?
Yeah, sure, I'd love to have a president who throws money at things without asking where it's going or what it's doing...huh, sounds like pretty standard liberal behavior, actually. Either way, he's losing points in the mind of the rational voter: liars can't be trusted; overly trusting fools create problems for themselves (and others); and moral relativists are the bane of modern American society. Anyway, think about it.
So there you have it. Join the fray...I hope this gets ugly.
That's a great many negatives, isn't it? Lest you think I'm a pessimist, let me tell you what I am about, rather than just what I'm not about. I am about completely sick of the Cult of Obama, Obama supporters (Baracktards, I've heard them called), hope, change, and other empty rhetorical devices that cause crowds to practically wet themselves and otherwise educated adults to abandon reason in favor or lemming-like crowd-think (a much more mindless version of groupthink).
How many of you saw Conan: The Barbarian? Remember when James Earl Jones, as Thulsa Doom, spoke to his followers? And they murmured, en masse, "Doom....Doom...Doom...."? How far is that from 17,000 people losing control over their bodily functions when Obama blew his nose?
Anyway, this blog, whatever it ends up becoming, is about two things: first, my highly subjective loathing of the cult-like following Obama has amassed and his increasingly arrogant behavior; and second, my highly objective issues with his philosophies, policy ideas, and plans for America.
And just in case you're wondering right now where my objective side is (after all, that snot story is pretty subjective), go read this one and think about it long and hard. If Obama is as smart and perceptive as he acts, and his flunkies insist, why the major lapse on Crazy Reverend Wright? If Obama was really an active, involved, invested member of his church, can we really believe that he was totally ignorant of Wright's views on America? Wait, wait..it's just his pastor, right? Wrong. If Obama gives money to his church -- which he insists he does -- isn't he, then, subsidizing that line? Wait, there's more: if he's tithing, and clueless about what the money is in part supporting, doesn't that raise a valid question about his judgment? If he's not tithing, he's lied to us, because he says he does. If he's clueless, isn't that a strike against him for president? And if he did know, and didn't do anything about it in the name of being "tolerant" doesn't that make him both a liar and a moral relativist?
Yeah, sure, I'd love to have a president who throws money at things without asking where it's going or what it's doing...huh, sounds like pretty standard liberal behavior, actually. Either way, he's losing points in the mind of the rational voter: liars can't be trusted; overly trusting fools create problems for themselves (and others); and moral relativists are the bane of modern American society. Anyway, think about it.
So there you have it. Join the fray...I hope this gets ugly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)